Veteran Shoots Would-Be Attacker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobson

Bobson

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
4,294
Location
Kendall County, TX
Here's what happened:

Retired Army vet is walking with his girlfriend when confronted by a man wielding a very large knife. The vet "immediately draws" his firearm. Man with a knife apparently stands there threatening and cussing at the couple. Veteran says he repeatedly orders the man with the knife to stop, which he ignores. Veteran says, "I don't want to shoot, but I will." Man with knife steps toward couple. Army vet fires one shot into the man's groin, and later explains that he "just wanted to stop the man, not kill him". That's it.

I thought it would be interesting to discuss the situation (strategy and tactics, as it were).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...d-his-girlfriend-he-really-shouldve-listened/
 
I'm glad he (the veteran) didn't freak out and just kill the guy. It probably would have been turned into a giant mess in the media. I also wonder why the other guy didn't stop. The writer didn't say anything about him being on drugs.
 
Right. His behavior seemed pretty weird. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that drugs or some sort of mental issue was a dynamic there.

I'm wondering about the shot itself. From the way it's written, and the vet's explanation of the shot, it sounds like he aimed for the groin.

Using a gun to defend yourself is using lethal force. You don't draw a gun and use lethal force by shooting a guy in the leg. Yes, you shoot to stop a threat, not to kill; but if you're using a gun, it's because the situation calls for lethal force. As such, you always aim for a vital organ.

If you use a form of lethal force in a non-lethal way (like shooting a guy in the leg), it can be very effectively argued that you didn't believe lethal force was necessary, which means you've got BIG legal trouble coming.

So what about a shot to the groin?
 
A shot to the groin is nearly as high a percentage kill shot as a chest shot with a lot of handgun rounds. As is argued here constantly, handguns (the preferred self defense tool) is not a high probability tool to rely on. In the chest breastbone and ribs can stop or deflect a shot easily, but in the groin your going to hit something very very very painful, break a hip, or cut a femoral artery. Slower death for sure, but not as far off as some would like to think. Hitting the big body mass piece (not limbs) is likely a lethal hit...time frame of lethality to be determined.
 
A groin shot can (as demonstrated) stop an assailant, and as explained, is potentially lethal. A broken pelvis will usually put someone on the ground and prevent their movement. If the assailant is armed with gun, this may not be sufficient to stop the threat as he can still shoot, but if he is armed with a knife, it is a different story.

What stood out to me was this: "Lawler also immediately drew his firearm as soon as the man started cursing at him and his girlfriend, and that didn’t deter him" He apparently went from there to issuing a "half-dozen" orders to stop.

We just had a long thread discussing whether or not it was wise or legal to draw or display a weapon as a deterrent with the prevailing opinion seemingly being it is a bad idea.
 
JRH, the story seemed to indicate that the man with a knife was already wielding it when he confronted the vet. If that was indeed the case, it's a different situation. The gun wasn't drawn as a deterrent, it was drawn because he recognized that he was already being actively threatened (not just verbally, but physically) with a deadly weapon.
 
The +s & the -s of lower torso/groin hits....

I didn't read all the details but from what it sounds like, it was a + outcome(no good guys/gun owners) hit or killed. ;)
I'm not going to nitpick or 2nd guess a veteran(or any other CCW license holder or gun owner) but Id of done things slightly differently.
If the thug or street hood was acting furtive or "hinky"(as 1970s cops say :) ), Id split the A/O(a US military expression for area of operations).
I would not draw or brandish my sidearm to "scare" the thug.
In my metro area a move like that may reflect quickly against a licensed gun owner or CCW holder. :uhoh:
The residual effects of the Dunn incident in NE Florida(where a gun owner was convicted for the death of teen he claimed threatened him) & the hotly debated Zimmerman/Martin(Sanford Florida 2012) case show you can't just pull a gun out & "scare people". :rolleyes:
If I saw a weapon or had a clear idea the thug(s) were going to advance on me or harm/assault another victim, Id draw & fire.
Id aim center mass or use lethal force too. I don't subscribe to the "shoot to wound" or "just wing em" mindset. Real life isn't a B movie western from the 1930s. :rolleyes:
Aiming for the lower torso or groin as a tactic isn't bad. It's been discussed ad nauseum both on THR & other firearm forums so I'm not going to re-hash the whole debate.
I will say there are +s of a lower torso hit. The subject may be knocked down or unable to move(chase you). He/She may be hit in a artery or have massive blood loss. I read a item years ago that a cut or wound to your upper thiegh can kill you in approx 20min if you don't get to a trauma ward/ER.
A bad guy could have body armor or a bullet resistant vest too so a lower torso/groin hit can help there.

In closing, it's a good story that the Army veteran & his girl-friend prevailed but in the future, Id hope he alerts on the danger signs & avoids using any force if able.
 
Bobson said:
JRH, the story seemed to indicate that the man with a knife was already wielding it when he confronted the vet. If that was indeed the case, it's a different situation. The gun wasn't drawn as a deterrent, it was drawn because he recognized that he was already being actively threatened (not just verbally, but physically) with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that from the story linked and have seen no other versions. From the story, I inferred that the man approached and began cursing, Lawler drew his weapon and warned him six times to stop. The man threatened them with a knife ("I'll cut you up"). Lawler fired, deliberately hitting him in the groin.

Do you have more details from another source?
 
Nope, just the one I linked.

First sentence of the article:
An Army veteran was walking outside with his girlfriend near his home in Philadelphia on Sunday when all of a sudden a man threatened the couple with a 13-inch knife.
Click to expand...
 
Me.....

BAD GUY; Hey man! I'm going to f... you up with my big knife here!
ME; draws pistol & shoots double tap. Sees subject fall, scans 360 degree area for other threats. Drops magazine(puts in pocket or holds it if there's time). Adds fully loaded spare magazine. Approaches downed subject & holds him at gun point while I call 911/LE/EMS. Id also yell for bystanders or witnesses to contact 911/LE(even though I'm fully aware many won't because they are in shock or too scared to speak to the police or they have criminal backgrounds/warrants). Id check myself for any injuries or see if my companion is okay too.
I would not touch the downed subject or provide any aid. I wouldn't allow any by-standers or passers-by to touch the subject or his property/clothing. If they did Id recall 911 or the PD again to let them know evidence or crime scene material was being compromised.
 
First sentence of the article:
Quote:
An Army veteran was walking outside with his girlfriend near his home in Philadelphia on Sunday when all of a sudden a man threatened the couple with a 13-inch knife.
Click to expand...

Which could be construed as inconsistent with the description of the encounter that followed. Or not. As usual, not enough clarity in the news report for a discussion based on much speculation.
 
You could argue that unlike a gun, a threat from a knife is greatly reduced if an attacker is unable to walk/stand.
I remember in reading Jim Cirillo's book about his years in the stakeout squad that if they needed to bring someone down to the ground immediately they would shoot for the pelvis.

If a guy is 5-6 feet away with a knife, even a double tap to the heart might not save you from a fatal stab wound. He just needs one jump forward. Break his pelvis with a groin shot, and you physically disable their ability to continue an attack
 
Knives, bats, edged weapons.....

I'm not going to drag out a long post on what to do/not do with different weapons but in short, I wouldn't hesitate or lag around with any knife/bat/stick/razor/sword/etc.
In 2011, while doing a security post, I had a run-in with a aggressive subject who wielded a chair-leg. :uhoh:
He was 6'08" & had a lengthy criminal record(armed robbery, assault, weapons).
Lucky for me, 2 uniformed police officers were able to arrested the subject. He was charged & made a plea agreement.

You can't wait or take chances with weapons. A razor or knife can quickly injure or kill you in seconds.
Author, sworn LE officer & tactics instructor Massad Ayoob wrote a great article about 10 years ago where he explained how a top edged weapons expert could slice up a victim before they even drew a firearm.
 
RustyShackelford said:
I'm not going to drag out a long post on what to do/not do with different weapons but in short, I wouldn't hesitate or lag around with any knife/bat/stick/razor/sword/etc.
In 2011, while doing a security post, I had a run-in with a aggressive subject who wielded a chair-leg. :uhoh:
He was 6'08" & had a lengthy criminal record(armed robbery, assault, weapons).
Lucky for me, 2 uniformed police officers were able to arrested the subject. He was charged & made a plea agreement.

You can't wait or take chances with weapons. A razor or knife can quickly injure or kill you in seconds.
Author, sworn LE officer & tactics instructor Massad Ayoob wrote a great article about 10 years ago where he explained how a top edged weapons expert could slice up a victim before they even drew a firearm.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the possibility of a knife attack is something that unnerves me more than just about anything else.
The sheer speed, silence, and casualness in which an attack can occur is dismaying. It was absolutely correct for the person in the OP's story to draw their firearm as soon as the knife was displayed.
Here is a great video that shows a self defense instructor explaining the reality of a knife attack.
Warning: cursing involved
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=37XiSn81oFw

My question would be, would it ever strategically sound to shoot someone specifically in the pelvis with the understanding that a pelvis shot is more likely to produce immediate incapacitation and immobilization?

That would be a bad idea if you were facing an attacker with a gun, as they could of course still shoot back even immobilized with a broken/shattered pelvis.

There is also the question of whether a pelvis shot with a handgun is likely to be any more immediately immobilizing or achievable than that on the central nervous system.

You also have the problem of over penetration and missed shots if you go for the legs or groin. Moving legs are a hard target and the groin is usually less thick than the chest.

Upon mulling it over, if a bad guy with a knife is charging you from close in, it might be a sound tactic to shoot once for central mass then start trying to break their pelvis rather than relying on multiple center mass hits to stop the attack.
Am I way off base?
Could that be considered cruel and unusual? I can just hear the prosecutor...."you tried to shoot his ......off!
 
Last edited:
Am I way off base?

There are some instructors that teach 'the zipper'- starting with a round or two in the groin and working up the midline with more rounds to stop the threat. The last person I trained with who suggested that approach was John Farnam. http://ravelingroup.com/wordpress1/dont-over-think-just-listen-up-and-shoot/

IMHO the biggest takeaway with the story in the OP was to KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT in the aftermath of such an event, beyond saying what must be said to responding LEOs. We have discussed the 'stress babble' effect of critical incidents here before, but a reminder is always in order.
 
If the threat is enough to draw the gun, then isn't it enough to shoot, without further conversation??
 
silicosys4 said:
...

My question would be, would it ever strategically sound to shoot someone specifically in the pelvis with the understanding that a pelvis shot is more likely to produce immediate incapacitation and immobilization?

That would be a bad idea if you were facing an attacker with a gun, as they could of course still shoot back even immobilized with a broken/shattered pelvis.

There is also the question of whether a pelvis shot with a handgun is likely to be any more immediately immobilizing or achievable than that on the central nervous system.

You also have the problem of over penetration and missed shots if you go for the legs or groin. Moving legs are a hard target and the groin is usually less thick than the chest.

Upon mulling it over, if a bad guy with a knife is charging you from close in, it might be a sound tactic to shoot once for central mass then start trying to break their pelvis rather than relying on multiple center mass hits to stop the attack.
Am I way off base?
Could that be considered cruel and unusual? I can just hear the prosecutor...."you tried to shoot his ......off!
Click to expand...

The problem with a pelvis shot with a handgun is that according the the medical opinions I've seen it is highly unlikely to result in immobilizing them. The pelvis is a plate, a handgun bullet will just put a hole in it. A hole in a structure like that will do nothing. It won't crack or shatter as it is living tissue not dry and brittle. Again, that was per an MD, I'm sorry I don't have the source.

So, why did it work in this case? I'd posit not because the pelvis was shattered and couldn't support weight, but rather when you shoot a crazy person in the groin they (more often than not) decide to put a hold on the crazy for a bit.

The only sure way to "stop" someone physically is with a CNS hit. Anything else relies on them deciding to quit or a long slow process of oxygen deprivation as they bleed out.
 
if the threat is enough to draw the gun, then isn't it enough to shoot, without further conversation?
Click to expand...
In terms of legality, no, not necessarily.

In AZ, for instance, it's legal to threaten the use of deadly force when dealing with a trespasser who refuses to leave your hone (say, a person was invited to a party, got disorderly, and then refused to leave). In that situation, you could threaten to shoot the guy if he doesn't leave. You could legally brandish as a part of that threat. But you do not have legal right to actually use deadly force to remove him.
 
IMHO- and under N.Y.S. law as well--this was a bad shoot.
Shooting to wound implies that you do not as of yet feel threatened enough to warrant the use of deadly force.
In other words, if you had the time and the inclination to shoot to just wound did you really have to shoot at all?
Also--rather than just giving orders to drop the knife, would it not have been wiser to attempt a retreat?
Even in a stand your ground state, this would be the wisest option--assuming, of course, that you could retreat with complete safety and have some where to retreat to.

In closing, it's a good story that the Army veteran & his girl-friend prevailed but in the future, Id hope he alerts on the danger signs & avoids using any force if able.

Exactly.
 
Matthew Temkin said:
IMHO- and under N.Y.S. law as well--this was a bad shoot.
Shooting to wound implies that you do not as of yet feel threatened enough to warrant the use of deadly force.
In other words, if you had the time and the inclination to shoot to just wound did you really have to shoot at all?
Also--rather than just giving orders to drop the knife, would it not have been wiser to attempt a retreat?
Even in a stand your ground state, this would be the wisest option--assuming, of course, that you could retreat with complete safety and have some where to retreat to.

In closing, it's a good story that the Army veteran & his girl-friend prevailed but in the future, Id hope he alerts on the danger signs & avoids using any force if able.

Exactly.
Click to expand...
It did not occur in N.Y.S. so N.Y.S. law is irrelevant. Do you happen to know PA law?

If someone is approaching you with a knife in hand, do you really think you will always have the opportunity retreat in complete safety?
 
If someone is approaching you with a knife in hand, do you really think you will always have the opportunity retreat in complete safety?

I have done so in two separate situations.
And, yes, I was armed at the time.
Had the guys continued to come at me I would have done something else
Regardless of the law, shooing to wound is not a good idea--and admitting doing so is really not a smart move.
Not is standing your ground when a retreat could at least be attempted.
In this situation perhaps if the good guy attempted to retreat while voicing his commands a shot would not have been necessary??
 
Bobson said:
JRH, the story seemed to indicate that the man with a knife was already wielding it when he confronted the vet. If that was indeed the case, it's a different situation. The gun wasn't drawn as a deterrent, it was drawn because he recognized that he was already being actively threatened (not just verbally, but physically) with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with your statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Could this set legal precedent on veterans and carry permits?
Replies
11
Views
1K
herrwalther
H
J
  • Locked
For the he should have known better files:
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Speedo66
Speedo66
C
  • Locked
Deadly force against "unarmed" attackers
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
Fred Fuller
F
J
  • Locked
I don’t think this one is going to turn out well
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
herrwalther
H
T
  • Locked
My friend was carjacked. (Intense)
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
patentmike
P
Back
Top